Refund of Spirit Sailing

Did I read correctly in the LA Times? It said everyone on the Spirit (the sailing that came under attack) got a refund of their cruise fare. True? WOW! That's a lot of simolians. Very generous of Seabourn, if so.

Jane

Not sure here. I did hear an interview on CNN where the President of the company said yes, not sure it is being honored.

Has anyone in the upper ranks or anywhere for that matter, considered any type of compensation for the crew on board during this most traumatic event?

While I understand they did the job as "required", imagine the pressure to maintain a sense of calm and order as I have read and heard now first hand while ultimately fearing for their own safety.

It is nice to see a company looking out for the best interests of their customers,to keep them sailing, but arent those crew members the REAL reason Seabourn has had the huge success it has. Providing the luxurious atmosphere and impeccable service.It seems at EVERY Club party, this is the image portrayed and acknowledged by the Captain, officers, and guests.

Ultimately, everyone is thankful that only one crew member suffered injuries, and all guests were spared any physical harm!!

So come on Seabourn, take care of those that take care of you!

Any more of us want to get behind this idea!?

Let's let them know how proud we are of them!!!

Thanks for the ear~

Smooth sailing!;)

Leo, I see this is your first post on CC. Welcome.

If you spend some time on this board - and even moreso in one of the triplets - I think you will see it is pretty self-evident that Seabourn takes care of its crew almost as well as it does its passengers. Many of them have been with Seabourn for years and would not think of working for another cruise line.

And I am sure they all will be heros in our eyes for a long, long, time to come.

I heard that Seabourn was giving a full refund to everyone who signed the waiver not to sue for anything further (ie) emotional distress etc...

It's a bargain to them if everyone takes the $$ now and drops any thoughts of law suits.

I don't know where you heard this from, but in virtually every instance compensation is given by a cruise line (other than an onboard credit for missing a port or something minor) the passenger is requested to sign a release. The same holds true for hotels, insurance claims, etc.

I am sure when the passengers return home we will hear exactly what the actual situation is.

:eek: I refuse to believe that anyone could sink so low as to sue Seabourn for this incident. No doubt some will think of seizing the opportunity, but I wish they will decide otherwise. I am extremely proud of Seabourn's actions and will sail on them at my first opportunity. What a fabulous job they did!

The regular Seabourner would probably not think of sueing, and I won't say much more than that.

Without a doubt somebody will TRY to sue. Too many people in this world want to pass the blame to somebody else, anybody. Like people trying to sue McDonalds for making them fat, or the hot coffee, etc. etc.

Anyway, Seabourn is doing the prudent thing by asking for waivers so they can move forward. Though many us could argue about the POSSIBLE outcome of a lawsuit, the only fact at this point is that people COULD sue and MIGHT win something, and might not. People sometimes get money from companies, not because the company did something wrong, but because they give up and do not want to continue the fight. Sad, but reality.

Personally, I would be happy with another round of drinks and a discount on my next cruise... but that's me.

I doubt that anyone would actually "win" a lawsuit against Seabourn/Carnival (the real "deep pockets" here). But any lawsuit, frivolous or not, would, through pre-trial discovery, explore the whole question of the Captain's reasons for sailing "near" Somalia. For that reason alone, I suspect someone will try the lawsuit route hoping for a settlement larger than a mere refund. Unfortunately, that's the way it is now (but, of course, that's also one of the reasons Carnival has insurance). It will be interesting to see if any U.S. courts will allow a lawsuit, given Seabourn's non-U.S. registry. That question alone will keep things going for quite awhile.

Personally in this situation I wouldn't sue either. Litigation (Denyse forgive me) always benefits the lawyers but even if you win it costs time and trauma. Unless you physically suffer something that stops you say working I hate this fashion of suing for stress as it seems opportunistic. Others might feel differently and who is anyone to judge what is right for others - they are entitled to sue if they want to.

In my view, Seabourn were wise and behaved properly and reasonably in offering (if they have) compensation so quickly and it's perfectly reasonable to ask for waivers. In this type of situation responding quickly and proportionately is the best approach and will stop some people suing speculatively. However, whether a case would win if brought to court is a completely different matter and depends solely on whether someone can prove both that they suffered and whether they can prove that the management of Seabourn were negligent ie "would a reasonable person, knowing what they should have known taken passengers there".

I don't know the US system, but in the UK in a civil claim that would mean that once damage or suffering has been proved, in essence whether on the balance of probabilities ie a judge were more than 50% satisfied that Seabourn should have known of the potential danger of sailing there, and if they should have known should they then have decided not to sail there. We will all have our views on whether a claim might be successful or not but it would seem to be highly imprudent to think it unlikey to succeed. Certainly in the UK I'd put the possibility of winning at say 60/40 in favour of a win.

Jeff

Jeff,

No apologies necessary. Litigation would be so unwarranted in this case.

I personally find the thought of litigation against Seabourn, particularly given their masterful handling of this incident, to be highly repugnant. But then, I think those of us who patronize the line would feel as I do.

Denyse

Denyse,

I think you're right.

An interesting thought is that it might be entirely different if this same event had happened to SS. By comparison many of their current customers as a percentage of many cruises are brand new and trading up. They are also having some existing customer handling issues which is currently adversely effecting loyalty. I think in this situation they might be at the end of a claim or two as they don't have anywhere near the same degree of loyalty, whereas it seems less likely here with Seabourn. We'll that's my impression anyway. The lack of litigation is in my view a proper reward to a company who clearly knows how to look after it's customers.

From their existing customers point of view (Seabourn) this event will I predict have an unexpected and surprising and some would say perverse impact. Loyal customers will (as already seen) circle the wagons and they will probably be even more loyal than if the event hadn’t happened. If no claims are forthcoming and if there isn’t an independent enquiry into “why they were there” then I predict that Seabourn will come out of this better than they were before having handled the situation both during the event and at the end of the cruise in a superb way. From an industry and consumer point of view – forgetting loyalties – I think the enquiry obviously essential as it might uncover gaps in information systems or vulnerable pressure points that might replicate in the future (heaven forbid), and might offer a better level of legal support to captains if an enquiry finds they need it. Passneger safety in the future does depend on understanding what happen ed here and appropriate measures being put in place to ensure no one goes through it again. Not a witch hunt but a proper independent enquiry.

Jeff

While not wanting to get into an entire legal discussion here, as an admiralty attorney I have a bit of different perspective. (As a Seabourner I concur that filing suit would be the last thing I would consider.)

I have not read the documentation (and I don't plan to, either) but there are issues dealing with venue and applicable laws (Bahamian, perhaps) as the ship is, I believe, a Bahamian flagged vessel. There are also limitations on various types of claims outside of the ordinary, such as civil unrest, piracy, etc. buried in the contract. Couple that with the fact (fortunately) that there were no physical injuries (not even a report of an angina attack), claims would be essentially limited to emotional distress; which are difficult to prove and probably severely limited or barred under the applicable law.

I am sure there are those of us (I mean lawyers) that see the publicity and potential to try to exploit the shock value, but I hope that reality, reasonableness and prudence keeps this out of the courts.

Cruiseguy:

Yes, I am an American lawyer, but I handle and litigation (when necessary) matters all over the world. In fact, I will be in Gibraltar later this month for a hearing. Most respectfully, admiralty is different than common law. While it is true that certain provisions, if deemed, too onerous can be ruled unenforceable, limitations developed in admiralty are far more restrictive. I would also note that venue for actions here would doubtfully be in the UK, though a few passengers are UK citizens, by terms of contract, flag and location of events.

As for your other comment, each person perceives things differently. Let's not wind things up by winding things up. If I offended you or anyone, sorry. If I my perception was correct, hopefully a few smilely faces will tone things down. Thanks.:) :) :)

Iamboatman-I assume your last post was actually intended for uk1, as you and I are in essential agreement regarding the legal issues this matter may (not) raise.

Cruiseguy:

Yep. Sorry 'bout that.:)

I was just reading an email with some new admiralty rulings and came across this ruling in the US District Court (our federal courts) transferring a case by a passenger to the US District Court in Florida BILL WIGGINS and ALICE WIGGINS, Plaintiffs, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, Defendant stating, in part, "This Court finds no reason why the Court should not enforce the forum selection clause. Even though Plaintiffs argue they did not have adequate notice of the forum selection clause and it is fundamentally unfair, the position is unsupported by the case law and facts making up this cause of action. In this action based on a cruise to the Bahamas departing from Florida and purchased through a travel agent outside of Texas, Plaintiff has not overcome its heavy burden and shown the clause "unreasonable under the circumstances."

It is not a perfect match to UK1's premise, but it most certainly shows the courts do regularly enforce the forum clause...and specifically as to Carnival Corp.

I am not trying to start a debate as to what the factors are that give Florida the proper venue, for as the court said, the case law give that...and this is not a legal board. It is just that admiralty is different and forum clauses are regularly enforced.

That's a lot of simolians.

A lot of simolians for the actions of just a few Somalians (as we believe them to have been) :)

I am now in Nairobi after a fantastic safari and will be flying back to London in a few hours.

To avoid rumours and speculation and just for the record, though, I should state the facts very simply without comment. I can speak for myself and all the other passengers with whom I have been chatting over the last few days. We have NOT been offered a full refund and we have NOT been asked to sign a waiver of anything. However, we have received a letter inviting us to to take a 7 day cruise at any time up to the end of 2007, paying only the usual port charges. The offer applies to the same category of cabin as we booked in. All of the passengers with whom I have spoken think this is an extremely generous and thoughtful offer.

Norm:

Thank you for all of your information...and bravery! Miss M was so concerned you were going to miss your safari. So glad you made it. I was planning on saying it must have been a once in a lifetime experience, but you most certainly already had one of those!:)

So, have you thought about where you are going to take that cruise?

Norm,

Thanks for the update -- glad you made the safari -- I belieive you got to Amboseli -- the elephant viewing there is wonderful -- particularly with Kilimanjaro for a backdrop. My first reason to the area was that it had a Garden of Eden sort of feeling. What was your favorite part of your safari?

Norm, it is good to hear that you were able to finish your trip. I am sure you are now on your way home and wil soon "SB withdrawal."

Also good to hear the truth from someone who knows what really is happening and from someone we all know was there. Keep up the good work, (and when you have more time, I know that I am one of many who would enjoy some more pictures :( .)

Sea-Hawk

Sorry, wrong face after the pic request:rolleyes:

Hi Norm,

It is nice to see you posting again, and we are all anxious to hear about the safari! Looking forward to seeing more photos of your trip. Welcome home (when you actually arrive home).

Denyse

Norm--PLEASE post safari pictures; as you know, I missed the cruise (and meeting you) and would love to live it vicariously. I envied you the Egyptian evenings and your awesome photographs.

Hope to see you at the Sky Bar on a future Seabourn sailing!

Winnie